Bapu Dnyandeo Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 September, 2022

[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Bapu Dnyandeo Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 September, 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100 OF 2022
Bapu Dnyandeo Gaikwad ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents
.........
Mr. Rupesh Zade for the Appellant.
Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, APP for the State.
.........
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATED : 19 SEPTEMBER 2022

P.C. :-

. This Appeal is filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("SC/ST Act")
against an order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati
dated 16 December 2021 in Criminal Bail Application No.1337 of 2021.

2. By the order impugned, the trial court rejected the anticipatory
bail application filed by the present Appellant, who is accused in C.R.
No.1042 of 2021 registered at Indapur Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 327, 427, 324, 323, 504, 506, 141, 143, 147,
148 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(2)(va) of the
SC/ST Act and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.

Kanchan P Dhuri 1 / 4
44-Apeal-100-2022.odt

3. On 14 February 2022, this Court passed the following order :
"1. The First Information Report (for short 'FIR') has
been registered on 3rd December, 2021 for offence
punishable under Sections 141, 143, 147, 427, 327, 323,
324, 504, 148 &506 of Indian Penal Code (for short
"IPC") and Sections 3(2)(va) & Section 6 of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities)Act,
1989 ( for short "SC & ST Act") and Section 7(1)(d) of
Protection of Civil Rights Act,1955. Section 3(r)(s) of the
SC and ST Act was not invoked while registering the FIR.
However, learned APP on instructions submitted that
even the said provision has been invoked after registration
of FIR.
2. The application for anticipatory bail preferred
before the Sessions Court has been rejected by order dated
19th January, 2022.
3. Although while adjudicating the application before
the Sessions Court, Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC & ST Act
was not invoked, the learned Judge has observed that the
said provision is not attracted. Similar observations is
made out for offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC &
ST Act. The application has been rejected on the ground
that the custodial interrogation of the appellant is
necessary for recovery of gold chain.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
after observing that provisions of the SC & ST act are not
applicable, the application for anticipatory bail ought not
to have been rejected on the ground of recovery of golden
chain. The appellant is initially sound and the allegations
of snatching of gold chain is after thought.

Kanchan P Dhuri 2 / 4
44-Apeal-100-2022.odt

5. Learned APP submitted that the provisions under
the SC & ST Act are clearly made out in the FIR. There
are statements of two eye witnesses indicating that the
golden chain was snatched by the accused.
6. As stated above, the learned Sessions Judge has
observed that the bar under Section 18 or 18-A of the SC
& ST Act is not attracted and the application was rejected
on the ground that custody is required or recovery of gold
chain. It appears that the quarrel had occurred suddenly.
The complainant was allegedly selling banana in the
market. He was questioned by the accused. In these
circumstances interim relief can be granted to appellant.
ORDER

i. Issue notice to respondent No.2, returnable on 14 th March, 2022.

ii. In the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with C.R. No. 1042 of 2021 registered with Indapur Police Station, Pune Rural, the appellant be released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;

iii. Leave to amend prayer clause. Amendment be carried out within one week.

iv. The appellant is directed to attend the investigating officer on 21st, 22nd and 23rd February, 2022 between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 noon and thereafter as and when called for till the next date of hearing."

4. The learned APP on instructions submits that during pendency of the present Appeal, the State has filed charge-sheet.

Kanchan P Dhuri 3 / 4

44-Apeal-100-2022.odt

5. In view of the filing of the charge-sheet, instead of entertaining the present Appeal it would be appropriate to direct the Appellant to file regular bail application before the competent court and continue the order passed by this Court dated 14 February 2022 till the decision of the competent court in the application for regular bail.

6. The Appellant is directed to file application for regular bail within period of three weeks from today. If such bail application is filed, the concerned Court shall decide it on its own merits without being influenced by the order passed by this Court dated 14 February 2022.

7. The interim anticipatory bail granted to the Appellant by order dated 14 February 2022 shall continue to operate till the decision of the competent court in the application for regular bail.

8. The Criminal Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Needless to mention that the concerned court before passing an order on regular bail application of the Appellant, shall grant an opportunity of hearing to Respondent No.2.




                                                                               ( N.R. BORKAR, J. )

           Digitally
           signed by
           KANCHAN
KANCHAN    PRASHANT
PRASHANT   DHURI
DHURI      Date:
           2022.09.19
           17:41:26     Kanchan P Dhuri                                                               4 / 4
           +0530

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court